THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
MILTON E. GRUSMARK, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court approved the conditional guilty plea and ordered discipline by public reprimand.
The Florida Bar filed a petition alleging probable cause based on the respondent's conviction for failing to file an income tax return. The respondent…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conditional Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court on Petition for Approval of Conditional Guilty Plea for Consent Judgment and Entry of Final Order of Discipline.
On November 30, 1978, The Florida Bar filed its Petition alleging:
“1. On April 5, 1978, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee “K” filed its report with The Florida Bar finding probable cause in case number 11K78M78. In that report, the committee took notice that respondent had been convicted of willfully and knowingly failing to file an income tax return for the year 1971.
“2. On April 7, 1978, MILTON E. GRUSMARK executed a conditional guilty plea in which he admitted that he failed to file an income tax return for 1971. The conditional plea is attached as Exhibit “A”.
“3. On November 16, 1978, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar approved the conditional guilty plea for consent judgment.”
The Petition for Approval of Conditional Guilty Plea is granted, and Respondent Milton E. Grusmark, is hereby disciplined by public reprimand to be published in the Southern Reporter based upon the facts set forth above. The publication of this Opinion shall serve as the public reprimand to Respondent.
Costs in the amount of $50.00 are hereby taxed against the Respondent.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, SUNDBERG and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Grusmark, 544 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1989)…or, as ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) is a clearly excessive fee for four (4) or five (5) hours of legal work. In addition to the foregoing, the referee noted that Grusmark had been disciplined by this Court in 1978. The Florida Bar v. Grusmark, 366 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1978). [*190] The referee recommends that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 2-106 (a lawyer shall not charge or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, that he receive a t…